Legalization of Racism for the Sake of National Security Historically, the government was examined in the capacity of the mechanism used to guarantee national welfare and the institution conniving at organized violence. Evidently, nowadays the class-race-violence approach to the analysis of the governments role is not justified. The modern government is rather the mechanism of coordination inevitably different demands and interests of its citizens and their communities with an objective of national welfare, than the mechanism that tolerates violence. The government uses power to balance the needs of national security with the civil rights and freedoms of its citizens. However, efficiency of the mechanism of government power (as well as the concept of common welfare) is limited by law the basic lawmaking demands concerning the certain degree of freedom and personal liberty that are primary in relation to the state power. The right for freedom is secured by the standards and principles of the international law. It means that the modern government is aimed to maintain not only formal legitimacy, but also the justice based on acknowledgment and absolute recognition of the supreme value of personality secured by governmental institutions.
However, any perfect mechanism of governmental regulation can malfunction and the U.S. legislative power is no exception to the rule. The question concerning effectiveness of the mechanism of restraints and counterbalances during the states of emergency (such as war actions) is very important. In these situations the U.S. Constitution is supposed to play the decisive role. The U.S.
The Essay on National Government States Federal Power
Power Shifts in Intergovernmental Relations: A Result of Fiscal Federalism Fiscal federalism is the result of the states' dependence on the national government for funds. Until 1913, the national government had minimal monetary resources, thus possessing little control over the affairs of the states. Once effected, the Sixteenth Amendment resulted in the amassing of government funds on the ...
Constitution is the only source of legal power and should be legitimate and valid both in ordinary and in extraordinary circumstances. Both the basic human rights (weve already noticed that these rights involve personal and civil freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) and basic civil rights should remain indefeasible irrespectively of the circumstances. The U.S. Constitution rests upon the presumption of its reliability, integrity and stability. The government has no right to undertake actions directed at limitation of the basic rights and civil freedoms of its citizens with no substantiation of such actions before the Supreme Court.
However, sometimes even the decisions of the Supreme Court contradict to the principles of personal freedoms and the Court can make decisions that can be called a legalization of racism. The case Korematsu v. United States (1944) serves a bright example of it. In this case the Supreme Court took into account extended presidential plenary powers during the war and confirmed the legality of the relocation of Japanese Americans to relocation camps. The court admitted that such relocation could be unconstitutional during the peace time and asserted that orders concerning relocation were admissible due to extraordinary circumstances in result of Japanese hostility. In order to examine the political activism within the Asian American community as well as the reasons of the case, we have to explore the legal, political and economic context that shaped the racial ideology and Asian American response of the time period we are examining.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the American government became concerned about the security of the U.S. mainland. Many American citizens were afraid of the Japanese, both non-citizens and citizens, who lived in the United States. More than 112,000 Japanese lived on the West Coast of the U.S (Korematsu v. United States: The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Internment).
The Essay on Japanese American internment of 1942
The Japanese American internment which took place during the second world war referred to the relocation and confinement of over 100,000 people who were Japanese Americans or nationals of Japan. These people were taken to housing facilities which were commonly known as the war relocation camps. This internment was carried out selectively in the United States with most of those who were interned ...
Approximately 70,000 of them were American citizens.
Naturally, people of Japanese descent had close cultural bonds with Japan. Although the government had no evidence of proven case of sabotage or espionage on the part of Japanese living in the U.S., the government became overcautious in relation to people of Japanese descent. In 1942 General DeWitt from the Western Defense Command recommended to evacuate Japanese and other subversive people from the Pacific Coast. According to him, Japanese were people belonging to an enemy race and there was no ground for assuming that any Japanese, barred from assimilation by conversion as he is, though born and raised in the United States, will not turn against this nation when the final test of loyalty comes (Korematsu v. United States 4).
These words played the decisive role in the U.S.
history, as far as President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt has signed Executive order 9066 soon after DeWitts recommendation. According to this order, the Secretary of War or any other military commander were authorized to prohibit some people to remain in certain areas of the U.S. coast. In result of these restrictions people of Japanese descent were obliged to move to special relocation camps far away from the strategically important West Coast area. This action can be examined as the most serious invasion of the individual rights and the most serious violation of personal liberties in the worlds history. In result of this order American citizens considered anyone of Japanese origin to be a traitor.
Asian Americans were very concerned of the negative attitude racist behaviors and the accusations in espionage from the part of American citizens. Besides, the Japanese Americans were relocated to the areas much farther inland, where they had to live in barracks with no cooking facilities or running water. As far as Japanese were allowed to take only basic personal things, most of them were forced to sell their vehicles, homes and other belongings and suffered financial losses. Further the Congress sanctioned another executive order by passing a law that imposed penalties for those who violated the restrictions that evolved from the order (Korematsu v. United States, 4).
The Term Paper on The Japanese Americans And The Issue Of Redress
... Constitutionality Most of the Japanese Americans obeyed the military orders as a way of demonstrating their loyalty to the United States, but there were some ... the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, Yasui v. United States, and Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Executive Order 9066 and the army s ...
Asian Americans started to protect their rights.
As far as the Supreme Court of the U.S. played significant role in protection of the minorities rights, Asian Americans took the matter to the court. The first case (Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)) was unable to prove the unconstitutionality of the order, but evaded ruling on the wider implications of relocation (Korematsu V. United States, n.d.).
However, the second case, Korematsu v.
United States (1944) was more problematic, as far as the Supreme Court couldnt ignore the core issue of whether loyal citizens could be summarily relocated to detention camps solely on the basis of their race (Korematsu V. United States, n.d.).
The decision in the case has been very controversial. The landmark case asked the question Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? Korematsu was a loyal American-born citizen of Japanese descent, and there were no evidence that Korematsu was a threat to the war effort. When the Japanese were ordered to move to the relocation camp, Korematsu moved to another city. When he was arrested and accused of violating the order, he challenged the conviction in the court.
According to him, the President, the Congress and the military had no power to issue the relocation orders, as far as the order was applied to people of Japanese descent and could be acknowledged as discriminatory policy against Japanese people on the basis of race. However, the government claimed that relocation of Japanese Americans was necessary due to number of reasons. The government saw no solution to test the loyalty of Japanese Americans, and, as far as there were some Japanese working for Japan, relocation was the only way out. The federal court agreed with the government; however some members of the court claimed that the decision was a legalization of racism. The decisions of the court aroused heated debates and haunted the citizens conscience. In 1948 the Congress enacted the Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act that granted monetary compensation to Japanese Americans who suffered severe financial losses due to the order. In 1980 the internment issue was opened again and, according to the resulting report, Personal Justice Denied (1983), the relocation was acknowledged unjustified by military necessity. Bibliography Korematsu v.
The Term Paper on Japanese and American Workers: Two Casts of Mind
Japanese and American Workers: Two Casts of Mind by William Ouchi P erhaps the most difficult aspect of the Japanese for Westerners to comprehend is the strong orientation to collective values, particularly a collective sense of responsibility. Let me illustrate with an anecdote about a visit to a new factory in Japan owned and operated by an American electronics company. The American company, a ...
United States . 27 February 2007 . Korematsu v. United States (1944).
27 February 2007 . Korematsu v. United States: The U.S.
Supreme Court Upholds Internment. 27 February 2007 ..
